Aryan Nations
Parade -- Coeur d'Alene, Idaho July 10, 1999Since the following is opinion that
describes the North Idaho racist controversy as I see it, let
me state up front my personal background and express my basic
beliefs on the subject of race.

What I
Stand For

I am a native of this area, having grown up
during the 1940's and 50's in the small rural town of Palouse,
Washington about a mile from the North Idaho border. My parents
and grandparents spent most of their lives near Garfield and Palouse
Washington, and had a small farm in Idaho near Potlatch.

My parents attended a bible thumping fundamentalist
church three times a week. In spite of my best efforts to join
in their religious beliefs, I always thought that their church
was a little nutty. I was and still am convinced that if Jesus
Christ were to return to earth today, they would be unable to
recognize him and most likely they would turn him over to the
authorities.

In my adult years I have been a member of both
the Unity and Unitarian church groups, but have since dropped
out. I respect the fact that both of these church groups leave
your relationship with God up to you to figure out, without a
lot of doctrinaire input from the church. But, I left the Unitarians
because they seemed to be overly focused on an intellectual head
trip and partisan politics. The Unity group seemed to be in the
ditch on the other side of the road with lots of warm fuzzy feel
good new age meetings, but little else.

I am convinced that there exists a Higher Power
in this universe than ourselves as individual humans. But, I doubt
that we will gain much insight into that during our lifetimes.

I believe that in a free country every person
is entitled to equal rights and opportunity under law, regardless
of their race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation. From
my childhood until my early twenties, I had almost no contact
with any members of another race. My first exposure to blacks
was in the military. Generally, I found the culture and behavior
of the blacks in the barracks to be obnoxious. Their loud music,
vulgar language and "in your face" confrontational attitude
did not endear them to me.

In the Spring of 1961, I was assigned to Fort
Sam Houston in San Antonio, Texas. One evening four of us, (three
whites and one black) decided to go to an amusement park. At the
ticket gate, they refused to let our black friend buy a ticket
because of his race. We tried unsuccessfully to persuade the ticket
seller that he was Mexican, not black. Then we decided that if
all four of us could not go in, we would all leave. This racial
discrimination was unjust and as repugnant to me as it would be
to any defender of liberty and justice for all.

Since I had little money I spent a lot of my
free time in San Antonio going on long walks. More than once my
long walks led me through the black section of San Antonio. At
that time the poverty and squalor was appalling. Also, my presence
was generally met with suspicion and/or hostility. It was a pleasure
to return home to Spokane and an environment without large numbers
of downtrodden minorities.

Today, my views on the issue of race are pretty
much in line with the findings in the book "The Bell Curve"
by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray. For several years
I owned Murray's Bookstore in Spokane. I have been astonished
at the number of customers (including at least five college professors)
and others who readily slam this book for being unscientific,
yet when asked, they sheepishly admit that they have not read
it. The
Bell Curve -- book review

The authors of "The Bell Curve" take
the position that with regard to individuals, no generalizations
regarding race apply, but if you look at large numbers of people,
generalized findings do apply. They posit that intelligence is
heritable, with the intelligence of white students generally above
that of blacks and below that of Asian students. This seems to
be born out by institutes of higher education discriminating against
Asians and in favor of blacks, although both groups have minority
status.

Liberals have good reason to be frightened by the findings of
"The Bell Curve." Herrnstein and Murray have given us
statistical evidence of the extent of job discrimination against
white Americans. The extent of that discrimination is shocking.
When you measure the occupational attainments of samples of whites,
blacks and hispanics with equal numbers of people with the same
mental abilities, blacks have twice the number of people in high
status occupations as whites, and latinos 1.5 times more than
whites of the same ability. The affirmative action programs and
race preferences for people of color have resulted in blacks obtaining
twice the number of desirable jobs at any given ability level
as whites. The discussion appears on page 321 of the book.

"But after controlling for IQ, the
picture reverses. The chance of entering a high-IQ occupation
for a black with an IQ of 117 (which was the average IQ of all
the people in these occupations in the NLSY sample) was twice
the proportion of whites with the same IQ. Latinos with an IQ
of 117 had more than a 50% higher chance of entering a high-IQ
occupation than whites with the same IQ. This phenomenon applies
across a wide range of occupations, as discussed in more detail
in Chapter 20."

In other words, you cannot measure discrimination
by simply measuring the absolute number or percentage of white
Americans in high IQ jobs. To test for discrimination you must
correct for the fact that there are many more white Americans
with high IQs as a percent of the population. To test for discrimination,
you have to test equal numbers of persons of the same ability,
and when you do that, you find that blacks get twice the number
of good jobs. For Latinos, it is 1.5 times the number of good
jobs. That is satistical evidence of massive discrimination against
white Americans.

We have become so hung-up on the idea of human rights and cultural
diversity that anyone so politically incorrect as to even discuss
the issue is anathema to the dominant liberal elite. Speak up
on this subject at the University and your career is put in jeopardy,
you are shut down, silenced, or removed. Intellectual freedom
goes out the window, to be replaced by big brother's state approved
dogma.

I believe that everyone is entitled to be
judged only on his or her individual merits. This means no discrimination
either against or in favor of anyone because of their race, religion,
sexual orientation or handicap.

The
Aryan Nations Parade

The Coeur d'Alene Police seem to be unable to deal with a few
passive civil disobedience protesters sitting in the street.
So, they divert the parade, effectively shutting it down, and
mill about in a casual mood. It certainly looks like a set-up
to me.

As stated above, I think that most church groups
are a little nuts, and the Aryan Nations church is no exception.
It seems to be normal for most churches to believe that they and
only they have found the correct path to God. Take a look at the
mainstream churches. Study their doctrine and you will soon find
statements and beliefs that would clearly be part of some strange
"cult" if only their membership was not so large. The
Aryan Nations focus on white racial superiority and white separation
strikes me as bizarre, but I support their freedom to believe
whatever they like. A preference for one's own race and culture
seems to be common throughout the world. To say that the Aryan
Nations is a "Hate Group" is not far removed from saying
the "The Sons of Norway" or the "B'nai Brith"
are "Hate Groups."

Truth, is the victim when the news media selects differing emotionally
loaded words to describe the Aryan Nations and those who protest
against them. Without exception, the news media characterizes
the Aryan parade as a "Hate Parade," and the church
itself as a "Hate Group" whereas those who protest
against them with truly hateful speech and civil disobedience
are without exception characterized as "Human Rights Activists."
The Spokesman Review today quotes Jeanne Givens as saying, "Human
rights is how we act. It's how we walk the talk." That's
pure unadulterated BS. It is the so-called human rights activists
such as her that want to take action to silence those who disagree
with her. The courts agree that the Aryan Nations folks have every
right to stage a parade in our free country, but these self appointed
activists are so fearful of the market place for ideas, that they
must engage in civil disobedience to silence those who ideas they
hate. So, the question is whose human rights were being trampled
in Coeur d'Alene yesterday? The obvious answer is that it was
the human rights of the Aryan Nations marchers to stage a legal
and peaceful parade that were trampled.

Today's newspaper also quotes Idaho Governor
Dirk Kempthorne as saying in his Keynote address at North Idaho
College that, "The Aryan Nations doesn't belong in North
Idaho. Hey, governor, you must have temporarily forgotten that
this is the United States of America, land of the free home
of the brave, etc. The citizens of this country belong anywhere
they like. They don't need your permission for a border crossing
into Idaho. Your rant at this supposed human rights rally sounds
like something I would expect from Senator Joe McCarthy in the
1950's. McCarthy's paranoia led him to see a sinister Communist
plot in almost everyone's words and deeds. You sound like you
see a Nazi lurking behind every North Idaho tree. Fact is that
when exposed to intelligent free speech the communist threat was
a farce. The fear that the neo-nazis are going to take over North
Idaho is a fantasy only the lunatic fringe can believe

Similarly, the Honorable Governor was quoted
as saying he doesn't think racism in North Idaho is attracting
white supremacists. And, he went on to say that the racists must
have settled here for the same reason most transplants do
"It's the quality of life", he said. Come on now Governor,
where have you been? Boise must be farther away than I thought.
That statement has got to be based upon incredible ignorance or
simply intended to mislead for public relations reason. You can
not have followed this issue in the news media without a clear
understanding that the racists came here because of the lily-white
demographics. They have been quite outspoken in this regard.

A member of the clergy and his followers sing that familiar
old hymn,
"My Religion Is Better Than Your Religion"

At the so-called Human Rights Rally, Victoria
Bruno told the audience that the "single challenge is to
make certain that a group of fewer than 20 people from Hayden
do not paint our community as an intolerant community." This
must be some sort of bad joke. She simply doesn't get it that
it is herself and the other 400 at that rally that are clearly
intolerant. Good God woman! Spending $40,000 to prevent a motley
group of 40 citizens from parading down the street on Sunday morning
is not intolerance? Engaging in strident name calling and civil
disobedience to deny them their constitutional rights is tolerance?
You've got the basket completely upside-down. In Hitler's Germany,
Hitler had the government available to silence or exterminate
those folks he found to be displeasing. In Coeur d'Alene those
who hate the Aryans have the local government to help them in
their efforts to deny the Aryan Nations group their civil rights.

I respect the choice of those people who feel
so strongly about any issue that they decide to engage in civil
disobedience. It is only proper that all those people who chose
to do so to be hauled off to jail. This did not happen yesterday
in Coeur d'Alene. In fact it looked like the whole thing was planned
in advance and staged by the protesters with the collusion of
the Coeur d'Alene Police Department.

I wonder what the sentiment of the crowd would
have been, and what action would have been taken, if this Coeur
d'Alene parade was a Gay Pride Parade and the Neo-nazis were the
ones shutting it down through passive civil disobedience? Of course
all of the protesters would all have been hauled off to jail and
hit with enormous fines and penalties. The citizens of Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho cannot curtail the rights of any minority group, no matter
how distasteful their views may be, without having adverse consequences
for their own cherished rights.

Conclusion

Yesterday will go down in the history books
as a sad day for all parties involved with the Aryan Nations Parade.
The Aryans were denied their civil rights. The protesters put
Coeur d'Alene Idaho on the map as the potential new home for bigots
of every stripe. The police wimped-out and sold out to the city
powers that be. The neo-nazis got the widespread publicity they
needed to stage an even bigger fiasco next year. The news media
broadcast far and wide that this is the place for the white-power
advocates. Government leaders stood up and displayed their ignorance
or attempted to mislead. The city spent $40,000 in an attempt
to prevent 40 people from walking down the street on Sunday morning.

The right-wing lunatic fringe in this country has always
been more dangerous and prone to violence than the left-wing lunatic
fringe. The left wing loonies trip out on drugs and get pregnant
by god knows whom. The right wing loonies make bombs and go postal.
The Aryan Nations, KKK, and similar pro-white groups tend to attract
young males charged with testosterone and limited in education.
A more serious and counter productive result of the failed parade
is this: If you deny these people their constitutional rights,
shut them down, and shut them up, that does not mean that they
are going to go away. Those protestors who wave signs saying "No
Free Speech for Nazis" do not realize the seriousness of
their statement. If the neo-nazis are denied free speech, it will
simply provide strength for the radical "Silent Brotherhood"
type of sinister action (not endorsed by the Aryan Nations) that
this area has already experienced.
--Wilford D. (Will) Murray

Update: August
14, 1999

Wednesday August 11th
1999 Buford Furrow Jr., a member and former security guard for
the Aryan Nations went on a shooting rampage in the Los Angeles
California area in an avowed attempt to kill Jews. Having shot
and injured an adult, a teenager and three children at a Jewish
Community Center, he went on to gun down and murder an Hispanic
mail carrier for the US postal service. It has been speculated
in the local newspaper that he went on this shooting spree in
the Los Angeles area rather than locally in an attempt to wreak
revenge upon the Jewish protesters who came up from California
to shut down the Aryan Nations Coeur d'Alene parade.

For the past three days the national and local news media have
been having a field day portraying the tragedy in terms of race
hatred and Nazis vs Jews. However, a closer look at Buford Furrow
reveals a psychotic individual who slashed his arms so deeply
they needed stitches, a man who attempted to commit himself to
a mental hospital, threatened to stab two psychiatric hospital
workers with a knife, and admitted to psychotic impulses to commit
mass murder and/or get the police to kill him. Clearly he was
psycho and both a threat to himself and others. Instead of involuntary
commitment to a mental institution, the authorities treated him
as a criminal, releasing him after a few months jail time. Thus,
we had a madman who had expressed an urge to commit mass murder
freed to return to our community with virtually no supervision.

I was trained in the military in psychiatric
social work, and I have served on the board of the Spokane Alliance
for the Mentally Ill. Mr. Furrow is proof once again that our
laws regarding involuntary commitment of psychiatric patients
are inadequate to deal with the real and present danger people
such as Buford Furrow present to us. Mr. Buford graduated from
college with an engineering degree. He was psychotic, not stupid.
To ascribe his actions strictly to his religious and/or racial
beliefs is to dodge the question of how to deal with the insane
who clearly pose a threat to both themselves and others. To lay
the blame for Mr. Furrow's actions entirely on the Aryan Nations
is analogous to blaming the US Post Office for their workers who
have gone mad, "gone postal" and committed mass murder
during a shooting spree. The news media is confusing correlation
with causation. If it is true that people who suffer from paranoia
or megalomania are attracted to oddball religious groups, that
does not mean that the religious "cult" is the cause
of their paranoia or megalomania.

Since my July 10th comments above, Rev. Butler has applied for
another parade permit to hold a parade on Labor Day weekend to
complete the failed July parade. The City of Coeur d'Alene Idaho
has granted him a permit. So, are we going to see even more JDL
people coming up from California to shut them down? If that happens,
will another member of the Aryan Nations go nuts and commit more
murder? Where will it all end? The national and local news media
have blown the racial hatred issue all out of proportion. Can't
we just get along? I would like to encourage the JDL and other
rabble rousers to stay the hell away from North Idaho and East
Washington. How can you say that the Aryan Nations is a "Hate
Group" and the JDL is a "Civil Rights Group?" Perhaps
it is just the other way around. It's time for all parties to
this mess to just "cool it!" - WDM
Update August 29, 1999 - Rev. Butler has called off the
Labor Day Week-end parade as "unseemly" in view of the
shooting in California by Buford Furrow Jr. He must have decided
to "cool it."

Sunday,
August 15, 1999 A Newspaper Filled With Hate

Are you filled with a smug sense of
righteousness? Are you thoughts pure? Do you believe that your
God and your religion is the only way? Do you think that the Constitution
of the United States limits your ability to stamp out evil? Are
you convinced that others are filled with hate and you are filled
with love? If you answered yes to these questions then you will
want to subscribe to The Spokesman-Review, the newspaper of Spokane
Washington. The Spokesman Review is fanning the fires of hate.
At a Spokane Hate Symposium May 21, 1999 Bill Morlin, reporter
for the Spokesman Review, defended his practice of giving North
Idaho a bad reputation as a haven for racists and extremists of
all types. "We write about issues to incite the public to
act against the movement," Morlin said." No other newspaper
has done such a publicity job for the Aryan Nations. Whether you
are an advocate for white supremacy, white power, JDL (JDL upholds
the principle of Barzel to change the Jewish image through all
necessary means including force and violence), black power, skin
heads or whatever, you will find that according to the Spokesman-Review,
this is the place for you. You will learn that this is an area
where "Hate springs eternal," and "Hate-crime laws
are largely symbolic." Yes, you will want to make plans to
relocate to North Idaho or East Washington right away. What is
a "Hate Crime?"

The definition of hate crime is: "An
offense committed against a person or property motivated by the
offender's bias against a person's race, national origin, religion,
sexual orientation or disability. Motivation is determined during
the investigation." There you have it! Hate Crime is Thought
Crime. You will be punished for your thoughts. Your thoughts will
be determined by others. Whose definition will be used as the
final authority to determine what qualifies as hate? Against whose
fixed standard for hate will this diverse nation of people be
judged? Will it be Mr.Clinton's standard or Janet Reno's? In principle
a crime is a crime, hate crimes are already crimes. There are
now in existence laws prohibiting harassment, intimidation, assault,
etc. Crime of any kind is punishable under existing law, but this
is going beyond the prosecution of the crime. This is criminalization
of moral values, opinions and thoughts as judged by the standard
of political correctness. This will ultimately lead to the confiscation
of the exercise of free expression; determining what is permissible
to speak and what is not. Rather than take steps to eliminate
prejudice, the government is attempting to fix it by legislating
reverse prejudice. Orwell was off by just a few years. Thought
Crime is now a reality. Our government has decided that in fact
two wrongs do make a right.What is Racism?
by Thomas Jackson

There is surely no nation in the world that
holds "racism" in greater horror than does the United
States. Compared to other kinds of offenses, it is thought to
be somehow more reprehensible. The press and public have become
so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any
but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the
inevitable texture of American life. "Racism" is never
shrugged off. For example, when a white Georgetown Law School
student reported earlier this year that black students are not
as qualified as white students, it set off a booming, national
controversy about "racism." If the student had merely
murdered someone he would have attracted far less attention and
criticism. Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities
are on full alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce
it, churches preach against it, America is said to be racked with
it, but just what is racism?

Dictionaries are not much help in understanding
what is meant by the word. They usually define it as the belief
that one's own ethnic stock is superior to others, or as the belief
that culture and behavior are rooted in race. When Americans speak
of racism they mean a great deal more than this. Nevertheless,
the dictionary definition of racism is a clue to understanding
what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American meaning derives
from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are equal. Despite
clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been declared to
be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who questions
the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil.

The dogma has logical consequences that are
profoundly important. If blacks, for example, are equal to whites
in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and
dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed,
the only possible explanation for black failure is white racism.
And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated,
America must be racked with pervasive racism. Nothing else could
be keeping them in such an abject state. All public discourse
on race today is locked into this rigid logic. Any explanation
for black failure that does not depend on white wickedness threatens
to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences.
Thus, even if today's whites can find in their hearts no desire
to oppress blacks, yesterday's whites must have oppressed them.
If whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress
them UNconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be
identified, then "institutions" must be racist. Or,
since blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply
must be millions of white people we do not know about, who are
working day and night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial
equality leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that
is not, in some fashion, an indictment of white people.

The logical consequences of this are clear.
Since we are required to believe that the only explanation for
non-white failure is white racism, every time a non-white is poor,
commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, white society
stands accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or misbehavior
by non-whites is standing proof that white society is riddled
with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-whites fail
to succeed in life at exactly the same level as whites, whites
will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them. This obligatory
pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. First of all,
racism is a sin that is thought to be committed almost exclusively
by white people. Indeed, a black congressman from Chicago, Gus
Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of Detroit, have argued
that only white people "can" be racist. Likewise, in
1987, the affirmative action officer of the State Insurance Fund
of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she explained that
"all" whites are racist and that "only" whites
can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained
without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality? Although
some blacks and liberal whites concede that non-whites can, perhaps,
be racist, they invariably add that non-whites have been forced
into it as self-defense because of centuries of white oppression.
What appears to be non-white racism is so understandable and forgivable
that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not an act
is called racism depends on the race of the racist. What would
surely be called racism when done by whites is thought to be normal
when done by anyone else. The reverse is also true.

Examples of this sort of double standard are
so common, it is almost tedious to list them: When a white man
kills a black man and uses the word "nigger" while doing
so, there is an enormous media uproar and the nation beats its
collective breast; when members of the black Yahweh cult carry
out ritual murders of random whites, the media are silent. College
campuses forbid pejorative statements about non-whites as "racist,"
but ignore scurrilous attacks on whites.

At election time, if 60 percent of the white
voters vote for a white candidate, and 95 percent of the black
voters vote for the black opponent, it is white who are accused
of racial bias. There are 107 "historically black" colleges,
whose fundamental blackness must be preserved in the name of diversity,
but all historically white colleges must be forcibly integrated
in the name of... the same thing. To resist would be racist.

"Black pride" is said to be a wonderful
and worthy thing, but anything that could be construed as an expression
of white pride is a form of hatred. It is perfectly natural for
third-world immigrants to expect school instruction and driver's
tests in their own languages, whereas for native Americans to
ask them to learn English is racist.

Blatant anti-white prejudice, in the form of
affirmative action, is now the law of the land. Anything remotely
like affirmative action, if practiced in favor of whites, would
be attacked as despicable favoritism.

All across the country, black, Hispanic, and
Asian clubs and caucuses are thought to be fine expressions of
ethnic solidarity, but any club or association expressly for whites
is by definition racist. The National Association for the Advancement
of Colored People (NAACP) campaigns openly for black advantage
but is a respected "civil rights" organization. The
National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP)
campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but is said
to be viciously racist.

At a few college campuses, students opposed
to affirmative action have set up student unions for whites, analogous
to those for blacks, Hispanics, etc, and have been roundly condemned
as racists. Recently, when the white students at Lowell High School
in San Francisco found themselves to be a minority, they asked
for a racially exclusive club like the ones that non- whites have.
They were turned down in horror. Indeed, in America today, any
club not specifically formed to be a white enclave but whose members
simply happen all to be white is branded as racist.

Today, one of the favorite slogans that define
the asymmetric quality of American racism is "celebration
of diversity." It has begun to dawn on a few people that
"diversity" is always achieved at the expense of whites
(and sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one proposes
that Howard University be made more diverse by admitting whites,
Hispanics, or Asians. No one ever suggests that National Hispanic
University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity of
having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black
Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the
Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from
a lack of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them
to celebrate "homogeneity." And yet any all-white group
- a company, a town, a school, a club, a neighborhood - is thought
to suffer from a crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied
as quickly as possible. Only when whites have been reduced to
a minority has "diversity" been achieved.

Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate"
or "embrace" diversity, as we are so often asked to
do, is no different from "deploring an excess of whites."
In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess
of whites. Our current immigration policies are structured so
that approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants
are non-white. The several million illegal immigrants that enter
the country every year are virtually all non-white. It would be
racist not to be grateful for this laudable contribution to "diversity."
It is, of course, only white nations that are called upon to practice
this kind of "diversity." It is almost criminal to imagine
a nation of any other race countenancing blatant dispossession
of this kind.

What if the United States were pouring its
poorest, least educated citizens across the border into Mexico?
Could anyone be fooled into thinking that Mexico was being "culturally
enriched?" What if the state of Chihuahua were losing its
majority population to poor whites who demanded that schools be
taught in English, who insisted on celebrating the Fourth of July,
who demanded the right to vote even if they weren't citizens,
who clamored for "affirmative action" in jobs and schooling?

Would Mexico - or any other non-white nation
- tolerate this kind of cultural and demographic depredation?
Of course not. Yet white Americans are supposed to look upon the
flood of Hispanics and Asians entering their country as a priceless
cultural gift. They are supposed to "celebrate" their
own loss of influence, their own dwindling numbers, their own
dispossession, for to do otherwise would be hopelessly racist.

There is another curious asymmetry about American
racism. When non-whites advance their own racial purposes, no
one ever accuses them of "hating" another group. Blacks
can join "civil rights" groups and Hispanics can be
activists without fear of being branded as bigots and hate mongers.
They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can come only
at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential treatment
of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are "anti-white."

Whites, on the other hand, need only express
their opposition to affirmative action to be called haters. They
need only subject racial policies that are clearly prejudicial
to themselves to be called racists. Should they actually go so
far as to say that they prefer the company of their own kind,
that they wish to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of their European
heritage, they are irredeemably wicked and hateful.

Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency
about American race relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer
the company of their own kind, to think of themselves as groups
with interests distinct from those of the whole, and to work openly
for group advantage. None of this is thought to be racist. At
the same time, "whites" must "also" champion
the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their
own future on the altar of "diversity" and cooperate
in their own dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize,
the displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples
and cultures. To put it in the simplest possible terms, white
people are cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit
racial and cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.

Of course, the entire non-white enterprise
in the United States is perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing
could be more natural than to love one's people and to hope that
it should flourish. Filipinos and El Salvadorans are doubtless
astonished to discover that simply by setting foot in the United
States they are entitled to affirmative action preferences over
native-born whites, but can they be blamed for accepting them?
Is it surprising that they should want their languages, their
cultures, their brothers and sisters to take possession and put
their mark indelibly on the land? If the once-great people of
a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is prepared
to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for
it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?

No, it is the white enterprise in the United
States that is unnatural, unhealthy, and without historical precedent.
Whites have let themselves be convinced that it is racist merely
to object to dispossession, much less to work for their own interests.
Never in the history of the world has a dominant people thrown
open the gates to strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens.
Never before has a people been fooled into thinking that there
was virtue or nobility in surrendering its heritage, and giving
away to others its place in history. Of all the races in America,
only whites have been tricked into thinking that a preference
for one's own kind is racism. Only whites are ever told that a
love for their own people is somehow "hatred" of others.
All healthy people prefer the company of their own kind, and it
has nothing to do with hatred. All men love their families more
than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they hate their
neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no ill
will towards non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to participate
in the unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies.

What whites in America are being asked to do
is therefore utterly unnatural. They are being asked to devote
themselves to the interests of other races and to ignore the interests
of their own. This is like asking a man to forsake his own children
and love the children of his neighbors, since to do otherwise
would be "racist."

What then, is "racism?" It is considerably
more than any dictionary is likely to say. It is any opposition
by whites to official policies of racial preference for non-whites.
It is any preference by whites for their own people and culture.
It is any resistance by whites to the idea of becoming a minority
people. It is any unwillingness to be pushed aside. It is, in
short, any of the normal aspirations of people-hood that have
defined nations since the beginning of history - but it is only
racism so long as the aspirations are those of whites.